Everyone likes to say, “Hitler did this”, and, “Hitler did that”. But the truth is Hitler did very little. He was a world class tyrant, but the evil actually done by the Third Reich, from the slave-labor camps to WW2 was all done by German citizens who were afraid to question if what they were told by their government was the truth or not, and who because they did not want to admit to themselves that they were afraid to question the government, refused to see the truth behind the Reichstag Fire, refused to see the invasion by Poland was a staged fake, and followed Hitler into national disaster.

The German people of the late 1930s imagined themselves to be brave. They saw themselves as the heroic Germans depicted by the Wagnerian Operas, the descendants of the fierce Germanic warriors who had hunted wild boar with nothing but spears and who had defeated three of Rome’s mightiest legions in the Tuetenberg Forest.

But in truth, by the 1930s, the German people had become civilized and tamed, culturally obsessed with fine details in both science and society. Their self-image of bravery was both salve and slavery. Germans were required to behave as if they were brave, even when they were not.

It’s easy to look back and realize what a jerk Hitler was. But at the time, Hitler looked pretty good to the German people, with the help of the media. He was TIME Magazine’s Man Of The Year in 1938. The German people assumed they were safe from a tyrant. They lived in a Republic, after all, with strict laws regarding what the government could and more importantly could not do. Their leader was a devoutly religious man, and had even sung with the boy’s choir of a monastery in his youth.

The reality was that the German people, as individuals, had lost their courage. The German government preferred it that way as a fearful people are easier to rule than a courageous one. But the German people didn’t wish to lose their self-image of courage. So, when confronted with a situation demanding individual courage, in the form of a government gone wrong, the German people simply pretended that the situation did not exist. And in that simple self-deception lay the ruin of an entire nation and the coming of the second World War.

When the Reichstag burned down, most Germans simply refused to believe suggestions that the fire had been staged by Hitler himself. They were afraid to. But so trapped were the Germans by their belief in their own bravery that they willed themselves to be blind to the evidence before their eyes, so that they could nod in agreement with Der Fuhrer while still imagining themselves to have courage, even as they avoided the one situation which most required real courage; to stand up to Hitler’s lies and deceptions.

When Hitler requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under German law, but powers Hitler claimed he needed to have to deal with the “terrorists”, the German people, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions, agreed. The temporary powers were conferred, and once conferred lasted until Germany itself was destroyed.

When Hitler staged a phony invasion from Poland, the vast majority of the German people, their own self-image dependant on continuing blindness to Hitler’s deceptions, did not question why Poland would have done something so stupid, and found themselves in a war.

But Hitler knew he ruled a nation of cowards, and knew he had to spend the money to make the new war something cowards could fight and win. He decorated his troops with regalia to make them proud of themselves, further trapping them in their self-image. Hitler copied the parade regalia of ancient Rome, to remind the Germans of the defeat of the legions at the Tuetenberg Forest. Talismans were added from orthodox religions and the occult to fill the soldiers with delusions of mystical strengths and an afterlife if they fell in battle. Finally, knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, Hitler spent vast sums of money on his wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, the world’s first cruise missile and the world’s first guided missile, weapons that could be used to kill at a distance, so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they were doing.

The German people were lured into WW2 not because they were brave, but because they were cowards who wanted to be seen as brave, and found that shooting long range weapons at people they could not see took less courage than standing up to Hitler. Sent into battle by that false image of courage, the Germans were dependent on their wonder-weapons. When the wonder-weapons stopped working, the Germans lost the war.

The Fourth Reich

The American people imagine themselves to be brave. They see themselves as the heroic Americans depicted by Western Movies, the descendants of the fierce patriot warriors who had tamed the frontier and defeated the might of the British Empire.

But in truth, by the dawn of the third millennium, the American people have become civilized and tamed, culturally obsessed with fine details in both science and society. Their self-image of bravery is both salve and slavery. Americans are required to behave as if they are brave, even when they are not.

The American people assume they are safe. They live in a Republic, after all, with strict laws regarding what the government can and more importantly cannot do. Their leader is a devoutly religious man.

The reality is that the American people, as individuals, have lost their courage. The government prefers it that way as a fearful people are easier to rule than a courageous one. But Americans don’t wish to lose their self-image of courage. So, when confronted with a situation demanding courage, in the form of a government gone wrong, the American people simply pretend that the situation does not exist.

When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the US Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the US Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently.

But so trapped are Americans by their belief in their own bravery that they will themselves to be blind to the evidence before their eyes, so that they can nod in agreement with the government while still imagining themselves to have courage, even as they avoid the one situation which most requires real courage; to stand up to the government’s lies and deceptions. The vast majority of the American people, their own self-image dependant on continuing blindness to the government’s deceptions, never question why Afghanistan would have done something so stupid as to attack the United States, and as a result, Americans find themselves in a war.

Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks the US Government requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under Constitutional law, but powers the government is claiming they need to have to deal with the “terrorists”. The American people, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions, are agreeing. The temporary powers granted to the Bush administration will be no more temporary in America than they were in Germany.

The US Government knows they rule a nation of cowards. The government has had to spend the money to make the new war something cowards can fight. The government has decorated the troops with regalia to make them proud of themselves, further trapping them in their self-image. Talismans are added from orthodox religions and the occult to fill the soldiers with delusions of mystical strengths and an afterlife if they fall in battle.

Finally, knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, the United States government has spent vast sums of money on wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, cruise missiles, and guided missiles, weapons that kill at a distance, so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they are doing.
As mentioned above, Hitler was TIME Magazine’s Man Of The Year in 1938. Stalin was TIME Magazine’s Man Of The Year for 1939 and 1942. Both of these men, and many others also celebrated by the media, were unimaginable monsters. The lesson from these facts is that it isn’t easy to spot a genocidal tyrant when you live with one, especially one whom the press supports and promotes.

Tyrants become obvious only when looking back, after what they have done becomes known. The German people did not stand up to Hitler because their media betrayed them, just as the American media is betraying the American people by willingly, voluntarily, even proudly, abandoning its traditional role as watchdog against government abuse.

It is the very nature of power that it attracts the sort of people who should not have it. The United States, as the world’s last superpower, is a prize that attracts men and women willing to do absolutely anything to win that power, and hence are also willing to do absolutely anything with that power once they have it. If one thinks about it long enough, one will realize that all tyrants, past and most especially present, MUST use deception on their population to initiate a war.

No citizen of a modern industrialized nation will send their children off to die in a war to grab another nation’s resources and assets, yet resources and assets are what all wars are fought over. The nation that wishes to initiate a war of conquest must create the illusion of an attack or a threat to start a war, and must always give their population of cowards an excuse never to question that carefully crafted illusion.

It is naive, not to mention racist to assume that tyrants appear only in other nations and that somehow America is immune simply because we’re Americans. America has escaped the clutches of a dictatorship thus far only through the efforts of those citizens who, unlike the Germans of the 1930s, have the moral courage to stand up and point out where the government is lying to the people.

Unless more Americans are willing to have that kind of individual courage, then future generations may well look back on the American people with the same harshness of judgement with which we look back on the 1930s Germans.

A war of aggression is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law. Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense, not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, and not sanctioned by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations) are wars of aggression. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle 6, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting World War II. One consequence of this is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the criminal law of jus cogens.

The United Nations Charter

* Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

* Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Bush confesses to war crimes again during a White House speech on terrorism

George W. Bush’s speech on September 6, 2006, President Bush’s Speech on Terrorism from the White House amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.

These are all serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and all violations of Common Article 3 punishable by fines, imprisonment or, if death results to the victim, the death penalty.

At the same time, Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act in order to retroactively protect him and other U.S. officials from prosecution for these crimes, and from civil lawsuits arising from them. He justified this on the basis that “our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act . . . ,” and insisted that “passing this legislation ought to be the top priority” for Congress.

The only real beneficiaries of such amendments to the War Crimes Act would be Bush himself and other civilian officials who have assisted him in these crimes — Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, Cambone, Tenet, Goss, Negroponte and an unfortunately long list of their deputies and advisors.

The central myth of the Bush administration’s War on Terror is that the world faces an unprecedented threat from terrorism that renders obsolete the existing laws of war and international behavior.

The purpose of the Hague and Geneva Conventions is to provide all people with certain protections in times of war, to place some limits on the otherwise limitless human suffering that war inflicts. Arguably, governments have agreed to rules of war precisely so that they can continue to wage limited war without plunging their societies into the total chaos that would result from unrestricted use of increasingly destructive modern weapons against entire populations. The Geneva Conventions afford different status to different classes of people, giving rise to different protections for combatants, prisoners of war and civilians. However the notion that certain classes of people fall entirely beyond the protection of these Conventions is not a serious interpretation, unless one is talking of something other than human beings.

For eight years, U.S. government officials have justified unlawful actions with political arguments that have no legal merit. Now that the political tide has turned, Bush and his associates have behaved like other war criminals throughout history, marshalling what power they had left to shield themselves from the legitimate consequences of their actions.

There is evidence that America could have had an economic motive for replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America’s decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the motivations behind U.S. President Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan, especially in light of Bush’s substantial links with the oil industry. Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster, which triggered the “war on terror” military campaign, could have been prevented.

IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF OIL PIPELINE

America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report from a meeting of the U.S. Government’s foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th:

“The U.S. Government’s position is that we support multiple pipelines… The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries, Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do support the project.” U.S. House of Reps., “U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics”, 12 Feb 1998

“The only other possible route [for the desired oil pipeline] is across, Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges.”

The Afghanistan oil pipeline project was finally able to proceed in May 2002. This could not have happened if America had not taken military action to replace the government in Afghanistan.

The war on Afghanistan was sold to the public as a reaction to the attacks on 11 September 2001. However, the war was planned before the infamous 9/11 disaster, and the military action began long before the World Trade Center fell.

The conquest of Afghanistan had been planned since at least 12 February 1998, and 9/11 happened just in time to secure public support for the attacks.

TIMELINE

3rd November 1998 - attacks stop US oil pipeline: Up to 80 cruise missiles were fired at Afghanistan and Sudan in August. An American-funded training project in Afghanistan has closed down as a result of the US cruise missile attack on the country in August. The programme was funded by the American oil company, Unocal, which was once hoping to be involved in building a gas pipeline across the country from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. ~ BBC News, “US attack closes US project”, 3 November 1998.

2nd January 1999 - US strikes targets in Afghanistan: No sooner had the Taliban won a series of victories in the north, than the US launched an attack on camps in Afghanistan run by Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who had allegedly masterminded the bombing of US embassies in East Africa. ~ BBC News, “Afghanistan: Campaign of conflict”, 2 January 1999.

15th March 2001 - allies invade Afghanistan: India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance’s capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries’ collaborative effort. ~ Janes International Security News, “India joins anti-Taliban coalition”, 15 March 2001.

3rd September 2001 - allies deploy huge task-force for “fictional” conflict: The aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious has sailed from Portsmouth to lead the biggest Royal Navy and Royal Marine deployment since the Falklands. HMS Illustrious is the flagship of three groups of warships travelling to the Middle East to take part in exercise “Saif Sareea 2”. More than 24 surface ships from Britain, plus two nuclear submarines, will be completing the 13,000 mile round trip. The operation, costing nearly Ł100m, will end with a major exercise before Christmas that will also involve the Army, Royal Air Force and Armed Forces of Oman. The strike force has been put together to take part in a conflict between the fictional forces of the so-called state of ‘Alawham’ and those of Oman. ~ BBC News, Carrier heads for the Middle East, 3 September 2001.

11th September 2001 - the war comes home to America: *** 9/11 ***

16th September 2001 - Bush prepares America to wage war overseas: “I want to remind the American people that the prime suspect’s [Osama Bin Laden] organisation is in a lot of countries,” Mr Bush told reporters on the White House lawn. ~ BBC News, “America widens ‘crusade’ on terror”, 16 September 2001.

18th September 2001 - diplomat reveals 9/11 “response” began before 9/11: A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban even before last week’s attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taliban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place. He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest. ~ BBC News, “US ‘planned attack on Taliban’”, 18 September 2001.

THE “WAR ON TERROR”: AN EXCUSE TO ADVANCE US ENERGY INTERESTS?

In 1998 US Vice-President Dick Cheney said in a speech to oil industrialists: “I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian” From 1995 until 2000, Cheney served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton, a Fortune 500 company and market leader in the energy sector.

Within four years the US military had overthrown the government of Afghanistan, and the construction of the Caspian Sea oil pipeline by US oil corporations had begun.

The ‘war on terror’ is being used as an excuse to further US energy interests in the Caspian. ~ BBC News, “Race to unlock Central Asia’s energy riches”, 29 December 1997.

“American oil companies, together with Pakistan, have shown strong interest in an alternative route that would carry Turkmen gas, via Afghanistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi.” ~ The Guardian, The new Great Game, 20 October 2003.

In May 2001, the mainstream media widely reported that the new U.S. Bush Administration had awarded the Taliban forty-two million dollars to support the eradication of opium production in Afghanistan. Less well known is the fact that, shortly after taking office, the Bush Administration had quietly resumed negotiations with the Taliban. In an important new book, Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth (2001), French authors Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie have revealed that the Bush Administration worked long and hard to “decouple” bin Laden from the Taliban and lay the foundations for U.S. diplomatic recognition and pipelines for oil and natural gas.

Brisard and Dasquie have drawn on numerous sources, including discussions with John O’Neill, the former FBI Deputy Director who retired in July 2001. Ironically, O’Neill then became security director for the World Trade Center, where he died in the September 11 attacks. According to the authors, O’Neill resigned from the FBI because the State Department had continually blocked his investigation into al-Qa’ida’s roots in Saudi Arabia. The authors report that O’Neill bitterly complained about the ability of the U.S. oil companies and their State Department allies to thwart an investigation that might offend the Saudi royal family and jeopardize U.S. economic interests in that country.

Brisard and Dasquie’s account of the negotiations between the Bush Administration and the Taliban between February and August 2001, provides a helpful framework for understanding the eventual U.S. decision to topple the Afghan regime after the tragedy of September 11. The authors have explained that Washington saw the Taliban as a potential partner who could provide stability in Afghanistan and benefit from the construction of pipelines by U.S. corporations. But, in a series of meetings in Washington, Islamabad, and Berlin, U.S. officials demanded that the Taliban surrender bin Laden and invite other Afghan political forces to join their government.

When the Bush government refused to provide proof and evidence that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001 (the US FBI could not find any evidence to link bin Laden to 9/11) the Taliban equivocated over and eventually refused the US demands, U.S. officials threatened to take military action against them - a direct violation of the UN Charter Article 2, paragraph 4 “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” . As Brisard revealed in an interview in Paris, at one point in the negotiations, these officials told the Taliban, “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.” As Jonathan Steele and his colleagues reported in the Guardian (”Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before NY attack,” Sept. 22, 2001), U.S. representatives told Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats at a mid-July 2001 meeting in Berlin that Washington was seriously contemplating this option. Although these U.S. officials have since denied making such a threat, former Pakistan Foreign Minister Niaz Naik, who was present at the meeting, confirmed their remarks in an interview with the Guardian reporters. Is it a coincidence that the deadliest terrorist attacks in U.S. history occurred just several weeks after negotiations with the Taliban broke down?

When the Taliban and other Afghan groups were formed to fight the Soviet Union war and occupation of Afghanistan US President Reagan (Vice President George H. W. Bush and 16th Deputy Director of the CIA Robert Gates) called them freedom fighters and welcomed them to the US White House. Now that the US is the aggressors and the ones occupying Afghanistan under military force the US Canada and other NATO countries calls those same freedom fighters terrorists and al Qaeda.

You would have to be pretty stupid to not see who the victims are in the US attacks and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. That is exactly what everyone in the US, Canada, England, France and other allies of the US are - unbelievably stupid. You are stupid because you cannot see the wrong that the US has done to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Do the math stupid. How many Iraqis took part in the hijackings of September 11, 2001? The correct answer is 0. How many Afghanistan citizens took part in the hijackings of 9/11? The correct answer is 0. How many foreign military war planes were used in the attacks of September 11, 2001? The correct answer is 0. What is the nationality of the accused mastermind of 9/11? The correct answer is Saudi Arabia. How many hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? The correct answer is fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. Did the US attack the country that had the mastermind and the majority of hijackers that took part in attacks of September 11, 2001? The correct answer is no. The evidence is overwhelming that Saudi Arabia was the country that planned for and executed the attacks because a member of the Saudi royal family was the mastermind of the attacks and the majority of the hijackers were Saudi and Valerie Plame traced the financing of the 9/11 attacks to the Saudis yet the US went and attacked and now occupy 2 countries that had no part whatsoever in the attacks against the US.

You are all stupid for believing that the Afghan and Iraqi people are terrorists for attacking the US troops who have attacked their country, destroyed their homes and businesses and slaughtered their people. You are stupid for allowing your government to inhumanly torture innocent people whose only crime is defending their country and fellow countrymen from the unlawful war of aggression and occupation of their country. No matter where you go in the World each country has the same duty to protect their country and people from an armed attack from a foreign country. Each and every country have the exact same military code of conduct that bounds their citizens to the duty to defend themselves at all costs, including giving up your life in resistance to an attack and occupation. The United States Army Code of Conduct is duplicated around the World. Read the United States Code of Conduct and substitute the United States with countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Russia, China, Canada or any other country. The duty to fight and guard ones country and way of life is the same in every country in the World. Duty bound to not surrender, to fight on until you are dead, to command others to fight and resist, to be silent when captured is universal because you do so to defend your freedom and your right for you and your countrymen to be free from unlawful attacks and occupations by a foreign military force. The Afghan and Iraqi people are duty bound and have every legal right to defend themselves and their country from the unlawful US attack and occupation of their country. They are not terrorists or the enemy - the US, Canada and other participating NATO countries are the terrorists and the enemy.

If Canada, England or France was attacked by a foreign country, the people of those countries would immediately organize a resistance movement to drive out the attacking military forces. Resistance is the logical and most patriotic duty and action that any citizen can take up when faced with a foreign military occupation of their country. Those who resist attacks and occupation are the ultimate heroes. Taking up arms to defend your country and fellow countrymen is courageous and honorable. Iraqi and Afghanistan citizens are not terrorists they are their country’s heroes - defending their country and countrymen from the unlawful US attacks and occupation. US propaganda labels the resistance as terrorists. US propaganda is used because if the US people realized that the Iraqi and Afghan people are the innocent victims of the Bush administration greed for oil the US would not be in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The US people don’t realize that it is solely the blame of the Bush administration and the Obama administration for the inevitable collapse of the US. The unlawful, unprovoked and unjustified wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan is bankrupting the US.

John McCain: “… after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region. Those “freedom fighters” were of course the mujaheddin in Afghanistan waging jihad against the Soviets, including one Osama bin Laden and one Zayman Al Zawahiri. We backed and funded them … we certainly supported the factions fighting alongside him, factions every bit as militantly Islamic as bin Laden–as even the State Department concedes.”

Canada’s JTF2 Black Ops unit delivering prisoners of war from the illegal US wars of aggression to the CIA/US forces for torture. Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced October 7 that the Canadian Armed Forces will join the US war of aggression against Afghanistan. The announcement came only hours after US and British warplanes began bombing Kabul and other Afghan cities. All the opposition parties welcomed Canada’s participation in the war of aggression against Afghanistan, with the exception of the New Democratic Party. NDP leader Alexa McDonough has opposed the US-led assault on Afghanistan, saying that the fight against terrorism should be waged under the aegis of the United Nations - according to the law. The unlawful mission has since been sustained and extended by both the Martin and Harper governments.

Last week the Canadian press revealed that the Canadian military, operating illegally in Afghanistan, are guilty of war crimes for knowing that every Afghan POW (prisoner of war) captured in battle and handed over to US controlled prisons were tortured. The story clearly shows that the Canadian government knew that the POWs were being tortured but ordered that it be kept out of the press. The Canadian government is guilty of war crimes, not only for torture but for simply participating in the US war of aggression against Afghanistan. A war of aggression is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This definition was first used by Finland to prosecute the political leadership in the War-responsibility trials in Finland. The principles were later known as the Nuremberg Principles.

Former leaders of Hitler’s Third Reich were put on trial in Nuremberg, Germany at the end of WWII for the very same crimes that are now being committed by the US, Canada and NATO. The Nuremberg trial was conducted by a joint United States-British-French-Soviet military tribunal, with each nation supplying two judges. Leaders of Hitler’s Third Reich faced four counts of indictment:

Count 1 - CONSPIRACY to commit crimes alleged in the next three counts.

All four counts apply to the military actions of the US, Canada and NATO against Afghanistan and it’s people. In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle 6, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

U.S. Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441

§ 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
(C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.
(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
(E) Mutilation or maiming.— The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.
(F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.

The law of war is a body of law concerning acceptable justifications to engage in war (jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in bello). The law of war is considered an aspect of public international law (the law of nations) and is distinguished from other bodies of law, such as the domestic law of a particular belligerent to a conflict, that may also provide legal limits to the conduct or justification of war.

Among other issues, modern laws of war address declarations of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war, military necessity along with distinction and proportionality, and the prohibition of certain weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering.

Laws of war are intended to mitigate the evils of war by:

* Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
* Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians;
* Facilitating the restoration of peace - We are in year 8 of this war of aggression, the most evil of all war, against a country that did not attack and were not involved in any way in the attacks in the US on September 11, 2001 or any other country before then and since then.

Declaration of war

In the United States, only Congress which makes the rules for the military has the power under the Constitution to “declare War” . Declarations have the force of law and are intended to be executed by a Commander in Chief when called into actual service. The last time United States passed a bill with the title “Declaration of War” was in 1942, against Romania. Since then, the United States Congress has never declared war against any country. The US has never “legally” declared war against Afghanistan nor Iraq. The US government has only used the term “Authorization to use Military Force”. The fact that war was never declared against Afghanistan means that the war is illegal as it does not have the force of law. The US, Canada and NATO never declared war when they attacked Afghanistan. Their attack and occupation does not have the force of law. “Authorization to use military Force” is a gross usurpation of the United Constitution as Article Six establishes the United States Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land. The US is member of the United Nations and as such is legally required to abide by and adhere to the UN Charter. Article 2 of the UN Charter strictly forbids all signing members making threats or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The illegal war of aggression against Afghanistan

Despite what the US, Canadian and NATO leaders claim the United Nations never authorized the use of military force against either Afghanistan or Iraq. No such authorization could ever be given to any country because the UN Charter (an International treaty) states that it is illegal to threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

The UN Security Council issued two resolutions in 2001 in regards to Afghanistan. The first one that was issued concerning Afghanistan was less than 2 months before the 9/11 attacks - United Nations Security Council Resolution 1363. Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 4352nd meeting, on 30 July 2001. It is this resolution that George W Bush fraudulent claims that the UN authorized use of military force against Afghanistan. The September 11, 2001 attacks had not even occurred yet. July 30 2001, according to everyone’s calendar, is 43 days before September 11, 2001. Nowhere in this resolution does it authorize use of force by any country. The next UN Security Council Resolution concerning Afghanistan occurs a month after the US, Canada and NATO attacks the innocent country of Afghanistan - Security Council resolution 1378. Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 4415th meeting, on 14 November 2001. Again there is no mention of allowing the US or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. All UN Security Council Resolution for 2001 can be found at the following link: http://www.un.org/docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm. Nowhere is there any mention of allowing military force against Afghanistan. In fact United Nations Security Council Resolution 1366, Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 4360th meeting, on 30 August 2001, reaffirms the role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflicts - “Reiterating the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirming its commitment to the principles of the political independence, sovereign equality and territorial integrity of all States,”

Legal Afghan Resistance and illegal US Unlawful Combatants

During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal. Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war, but only after facing a “competent tribunal” (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial”, because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. According to the laws of war soldiers become unlawful combatants when they break specific provisions of the laws of war. The US fraudulently declares the Afghan resistance which are fighting in self-defense from the US unlawful war of aggression as unlawful combatants. The Afghan Taliban and other resistance groups are not breaking any laws. The Afghan Taliban and other resistance groups are the only ones operating within the law as their fight is one of self-defense. The Taliban and other resistance groups are killing US, Canadian and NATO troops legally. They are the ones being unlawfully attacked by US, Canadian and NATO troops. They, the Taliban and the Afghan resistance, are defending their country and their fellow countrymen from the unlawful war of aggression, crimes against peace, war crimes against humanity that are being committed on a daily basis by the US, Canada and NATO.

Self-defense is the act of defending oneself, one’s property or the well-being of another from physical harm. In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person attacked to use reasonable force in their own defense and the defense of others. A person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury, however a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death.

Canadian Criminal Code, Sections 34-37

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

The US, Canada and NATO are attacking the Afghan people and their legal Taliban governing body on a daily basis since October 7, 2001. The Afghan people and the Taliban are acting in legal self-defense of themselves and the defense of their country and fellow countrymen. The Afghan people and the Taliban are forced every day to use deadly physical force in defense from the unlawful life threatening daily attacks by US, Canadian and NATO forces. According to US, Canadian and International Law the US, Canadian and NATO leadership are guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, Murder and Torture.